Palin's emotional appeal comes too late

As I have mentioned in my past few blog entries, it is beneficial to appeal to the emotion of the audience when trying to persuade others to agree with a certain argument. In the news last week I read that Sarah Palin introduced new proposals for special needs children that she "says the McCain-Palin administration would persue" http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3161758&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/.

These proposals include giving parents withe special needs children more choice in what schools their children attend, as well as keeping federal funds with these children along the way. I think it is good the Palin raised such an issue because, as one reporter mentioned, it "might help her among some women voters." Clearly, these issues are not political issues, but deal more with the ways in which individual families are affected on a daily basis. In such a way, Palin is appealing to the emotion of the audience, which in this case is any family with a child who has special needs.

This newsfeed also mentioned, however, that she should have raised this issue earlier. In my argumentative writing textbook, the intensity of emotions is discussed. In most cases, the more intense an emotion, the more effective it will be in an argument. The textbook states that "Love tends to grow with time" (Crowley, 252). I believe this is true, and if so, it would have been beneficial for Palin to have raised the issue of proposals for special needs children long ago. Since it appeals to the emotion of many individual families, had Palin mentioned this earlier in the campaign, it only would have helped her because these families might have grown to love her over the course of the entire campaign. Now that she mentions this just days away from the election, it will be much more difficult for Palin to sway the emotions of the American public to vote for her, and love her, if they do not already.

Pathos continued...

In my last blog entry, I wrote about the use of pathos in argumentative writing. As a refresher, I will mention once again that pathos refer to a rhetor appealing to the emotion of the audience in order to persuade and make his/her argument stronger. In that entry, I mentioned a commercial that appeals to the emotions of the viewers and how it is effective in its persuasion. On a larger scale, I was reading the news today and I came across an example of rhetors using pathos to further persuade the American population of voters to vote for Obama.

This article explains why Obama will be taking a break from his campaign trail for the weekend to "visit his ailing grandmother" http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/20/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCText. I think this article serves two purposes. First, it simply informs the audience why Obama had to suddenly cancel his campaigning in multiple cities, and secondly, it appeals to the emotions of the audience. Many people have dealt with the grief of losing a loved one or with the sickness of a loved one, and by explaining that Obama will be doing just that, an emotion is sparked within the members of the audience because they can relate.

In my textbook, it states, "Emotional responses help people to change their minds. When a person experiences an emotion such as anger, pity, or fear, she enters a new state of mind in which she sees things differently" (Crowley, 251). By giving the story of how much his grandmother means to him, and therefore, he must visit her in her sickness, Obama's campaign is eliciting an emotional response within the audience that might in fact persuade people to believe that Obama is a caring man, a family man, a loving man. I'm not saying that he is not any of these things; instead, I am saying that this is the rhetorical practice of using pathos and appealing to the emotions of the audience for further persuasion toward an argument (in this case trying to persuade people to vote for Obama because he is a good guy).

This is an interesting technique, but I find in looking at various articles, pathos are used quite often and appear to be quite effective in rhetoric.

Evoking emotion to persuade an audience

Pathos are the way in which rhetors "appeal to human emotion" (Crowley, 246). It seems logical that members of the audience will be more easily persuaded if rhetors are able to evoke certain emotions within them. In my argumentative writing textbook, it is stated that "as emotional intensity wanes, so does the persuasiveness of arguments based on emotional appeals" (Crowley, 247). In other words, if the intensity of the emotion evoked in an argument is minimal and the argument is based on the emotional appeal, then the audience will not easily be persuaded.

As I read this in my textbook, I was thinking of an everyday example of pathos being used in the media and I immediately thought of a specific commercial on TV. This commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc asks people to donate $18 a month to BCSPCA to help rescue animals who have been abused by giving them food, shelter, etc. I think this commercial is extremely persuasive and its argument that one should sponsor an animal at a monthly rate is based on emotional appeals and certainly appeals to the audiences' emotions. As my textbook mentions, "emotional appeals are based on the assumption that human beings share similar kinds of emotional responses to events" (Crowley, 250). It can be assumed that many people have pets, or rather that many people love animals and have such a strong connection with them that they can't imagine any animal that deserves to be abused. The commercial plays a very sad song in the background while simultaneously showing pictures and video clips of injured dogs and cats. I think that because of the emotion this commercial sparks inside of a viewer, it serves as very effective argument that these animals need help and persuades a large audience to donate "$18 a month, just 60 cents a day" to such a worthy cause.

Closing the Gap Further

In my last entry I discussed rhetorical distance and how rhetors can form relationships with the audience to be more persuasive. Today, as I was reading my argumentative writing book for class, I came across something called "Grammatical Person." This sparked my interest because it can be applied to so many different scenarios. There are three types of grammatical persons:

First-Person Reference: "I want you to do the dishes today."
Second-Person Address: "Do these dishes today or else."
Third-Person Reference: "Someone must do these dishes today." (Crowley, 217)

Often in writing, the third-person reference is used because of its formality, however, "first and second-person discourse creates less distance between a rhetor and an audience...because the participants in the action are referred to directly" (Crowley, 217). Clearly, first and second-person discourse is used on a day to day basis when speaking to a friend, for example. It makes much more sense to say, "it is your turn to make dinner tonight" rather than, "it is her turn to make dinner tonight." If the latter (third-person reference) is used, the intimacy distance is lost and the person you are referring to may not even understand what you are saying or if you are referring to them.

A lot of times, it would make sense that in large speeches, for example, the third-person reference would be used because the rhetor is addressing a larger audience and not just a single person. This is not necessarily true, however. In the town hall style presidential debate last week, both candidates, Obama and McCain, attempted to close the distance between themselves and the audience by patting them on the back, and most importantly by using first-person reference with sayings like "My friends" and addressing those who asked questions by name before answering the question. I thought this was particularly interesting because although the audience of this debate was the entire nation, it seems more effective to address either the one person who asked the question directly or to address the entire nation as if they were being addressed individually. After all, we are all "friends" with the candidates, right? A simple use of first-person discourse in this situation allows the rhetorical distance to close and make thousands of people to believe the candidates are talking directly to them.

Rhetorical Distance

The other day I was reading an article that stated, "There's something about Barack Obama—his youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness—that has awakened the sleeping giant of the youth vote." http://www.newsweek.com/id/164358. This was very interesting to me because it made me think about how many youth votes Obama probably is gaining every day due to his own "youth." In my argumentative writing book, there was a section called "Voice and Rhetorical Distance." In this section, it is stated that "As a general rule, persuasion occurs more easily when audiences can identify with rhetors" and "Intimate Distance= Closer Identification, More Persuasive Potential" (Crowley, 213). I believe this is most certainly true. If a person in the audience can relate to the rhetor, his or her persuasion would be more effective. This is very true in the presidential election this year. As this article stated, "[Obama's] youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness" will most likely be an incentive for many young voters to head to the polls on November 4th. Although Obama is very charismatic and persuasive through his language, I believe he is also persuasive to a young audience because of his age. Many youth are more likely to relate to him than McCain, which may provide Obama with many votes from youth who were "sleeping" before. It is interesting to me, although it does make perfect sense, that a person can achieve more "intimate distance" to be more persuasive in ways that do not include language. It seems the trick for a rhetor in this case is to get the audience to more closely identify with you through language and other means as well.

Rhetorical Distance

The other day I was reading an article that stated, "There's something about Barack Obama—his youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness—that has awakened the sleeping giant of the youth vote." http://www.newsweek.com/id/164358. This was very interesting to me because it made me think about how many youth votes Obama probably is gaining every day due to his own "youth." In my argumentative writing book, there was a section called "Voice and Rhetorical Distance." In this section, it is stated that "As a general rule, persuasion occurs more easily when audiences can identify with rhetors" and "Intimate Distance= Closer Identification, More Persuasive Potential" (Crowley, 213). I believe this is most certainly true. If a person in the audience can relate to the rhetor, his or her persuasion would be more effective. This is very true in the presidential election this year. As this article stated, "[Obama's] youth, his transcendence of race, his coolness" will most likely be an incentive for many young voters to head to the polls on November 4th. Although Obama is very charismatic and persuasive through his language, I believe he is also persuasive to a young audience because of his age. Many youth are more likely to relate to him than McCain, which may provide Obama with many votes from youth who were "sleeping" before. It is interesting to me, although it does make perfect sense, that a person can achieve more "intimate distance" to be more persuasive in ways that do not include language. It seems the trick for a rhetor in this case is to get the audience to more closely identify with you through language and other means as well.

The Presidential Debate

As I have mentioned in previous blog entries, I have never been interested in politics. However, for my argumentative writing class, it would only make sense that we are expected to follow this year's presidential election, as much of the campaign deals with persuasive rhetoric through events such as debates. I have to admit also, that in addition to the fact that I am expected to follow current issues and politics for class, I have enjoyed how much I have learned so far and how much interest the campaign has sparked in me thus far.

Last Tuesday night, I watched the second of three presidential debates. I thought both candidates did a nice job presenting their arguments, even though they consistently went over their time constraints. One thing in particular that I noticed was something concerning the very last question, "What don't you know, and how will you learn it?" It seemed to me that Obama never actually answered this question. Instead, he stated what he did know: that he had many opportunities handed to him in life, and that we need fundamental change to ensure that these opportunities are passed down to the next generation. McCain appeared to clearly answer the question by saying that what he does not know is what the unexpected will be; what challenges we will face at home and abroad.

On another note, I also was interested to hear what both candidates had to say about energy and the environment, because I am in an environment class right now where we discuss many ecological issues and ways of solving these problems. What I thought was interesting about this part of the debate was after McCain spoke, and Obama told the audience that McCain mentioned that over the last 30 years, politicians in Washington haven't done anything about our energy problems, but that what he didn't mention was that he was there for 26 of those years. He then proceeds to say it is easy for us to talk about this during a campaign, but "it requires a sustained effort from the next president." I thought this was a very effective point, and Obama did a nice job of presenting it.

Celebrity, Leader, or Both?

Rene Descartes, a 16th century French philosopher, wrote: "For, finally, whether we are awake or asleep, we should never let ourselves be persuaded except on the evidence of our reason." After reading this sentence, I realized what a good philosophy this still is today. No one should be told what to think, or persuaded to think something different than they already do, but rather every individual should formulate their own opinions about issues. The only reason a person should be persuaded in their thoughts is if their own reasons provide evidence that they should indeed be persuaded.

In society today, however, this is not the case. People are persuaded to formulate opinions based on things other than their own reasons. The most clear example of this is certainly the role the media plays in multiple aspects of life, ranging from important issues like the election,
to smaller issues like what to buy for dinner or where to go shopping. The media provides ways of persuading society through many advertisements and propaganda techniques. An explicit example of this is found in a John McCain campaign commercial where it implies that Barack Obama is the "biggest celebrity in the world" and that that does not make him ready to lead a nation. The ad can be viewed at this website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg. Clearly, this propaganda technique is a way that the media reaches society and persuades them to formulate an opinion about Obama other than their own. This is just one example of propaganda such as this, it is not one sided, but rather a common practice and effective technique in persuasion.

Further, on a much smaller scale, one might be wondering what to eat for dinner and perhaps they cross paths with an advertisement such as this: http://www.inkthinkerblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/3-taco-bell-signs.jpg, which is a picture of the 79 cent, 89 cent, and 99 cent meals at Taco Bell. This use of propaganda may influence a person to eat at Taco Bell for dinner, because as the sign says, it is cheap. I understand that this example is on the utmost small end of an issue (deciding what to eat), but still provides evidence that propaganda can influence the way we think. According to Descartes, no one should be persuaded to think something other than with their own reason, but it appears that this is hard to accomplish in a society like today, where the media attempts to persuade us on issues from both ends of the spectrum.

We use probability everyday?

"Greek rhetoricians called any kind of statement that predicts something about human behavior a statement of probability. Probabilities are not as reliable as certainties, but they are more reliable than chance" (Crowley, p.160). This is how Sharon Crowely explains what probability is. Probability that rhetoricians use in writing is different from probabilities used in mathematical equations, for there is no way to calculate and quantify human behavior. I had never really thought about this before, but it makes perfect sense. We use rhetorical probabilities everyday. For example, a child who wants a puppy must evaluate the situation before he or she asks for one. In other words, what would he or she predict their parents reaction might be? In this case, this child would be gathering information to best predict what would happen if he or she did decide to ask for a puppy. In this way, I believe that probability in rhetoric has the ability to further an argument because in making a prediction about human behavior, one must look at all sides and angles of what might occur in the situation. In doing so, a person who has used probabilities will have already thought of rebuttals, in this scenario, of the reasons why he or she shouldn't get a puppy, and will be able to refute their argument on the spot. I am amazed I never looked at this process as being probability, as I limited the term only to math, but it is a procedure that involves predicting something less than absolute, but more than just chance. Another example would be the probability of what would happen if you turned your homework in late. Would there be consequences? In order to determine this, you would need to first draw from inside information about what you know: how lenient is the teacher? do you normally turn your homework in on time? etc. It is fascinating how often probability is used outside of math, which also raises the question: what is a definition? Is it limited to one defining factor? In this case, no, the word "probability" defines something slightly different in math than it does in rhetoric.